Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on July 25, 2018, 02:05:37 PM
-
Bear with me here.
Let's look at the Harlot bands to Nebuchadnezzar who search out Fire Foxes scenario, but with a twist. Let's say I keep Fire Foxes in hand instead of adding it to battle.
My opponent then plays a card that negates Harlot. Nebby goes back to territory. My initiative, I play Lurking and band Fire Foxes into battle from hand.
Does Fire Foxes activate? Or is he Prevented via Cascade Negate?
-
Bear with me here.
Let's look at the Harlot bands to Nebuchadnezzar who search out Fire Foxes scenario, but with a twist. Let's say I keep Fire Foxes in hand instead of adding it to battle.
My opponent then plays a card that negates Harlot. Nebby goes back to territory. My initiative, I play Lurking and band Fire Foxes into battle from hand.
Does Fire Foxes activate? Or is he Prevented via Cascade Negate?
The relevant portion is the fact that FF is added to hand or battle. And since you kept it in hand and your opponent cascade negated your Harlot then your FF’s ability will still activate.
-
Bear with me here.
Let's look at the Harlot bands to Nebuchadnezzar who search out Fire Foxes scenario, but with a twist. Let's say I keep Fire Foxes in hand instead of adding it to battle.
My opponent then plays a card that negates Harlot. Nebby goes back to territory. My initiative, I play Lurking and band Fire Foxes into battle from hand.
Does Fire Foxes activate? Or is he Prevented via Cascade Negate?
The relevant portion is the fact that FF is added to hand or battle. And since you kept it in hand and your opponent cascade negated your Harlot then your FF’s ability will still activate.
+1 If Foxes was added to battle it would be activating because Harlot indirectly put it in battle. This time foxes is activating because put in battle by Lurking, not by Harlot.
-
Are we saying that bels banquet wouldn't work in this scenario (if you got that instead of fire foxes)? That's pretty messed up.
-
How does that make any differences then if neb had put it in battle, a CBN ability went and got it and played it, how we should be looking at it is CBN and CBI should create a new building to say, (I liked the building referance from the last thread) the character with the CBN CBI ability is the roof of the first building and the ability the foundation of a new building, cascade should stop at 1 building not the entire town,
-
Are we saying that bels banquet wouldn't work in this scenario (if you got that instead of fire foxes)? That's pretty messed up.
Foxes and Banquet should work the same in both scenarios. If you add either to battle they can be cascaded and if you add either to hand then put them in battle they shouldn't be affected by cascade.
-
+1
-
When are we gonna realize that cascade negate is bad for the game???
-
My initial impression is that if Bel's or Foxes are added to hand via Harlot banded to Nebby, and then later they are played into battle after Harlot is negated, they would not fall under the cascade.
I believe that is consistent with a Hero in territory being prevented by Woes, Hypocrisy returning that Hero to hand and then that Hero being able to be played again without being prevented.
-
It comes down to how you want to interpret it there's not really a right answer here. IMO the rules for cascade negate are not neither clear nor dense enough and so cbn hopping exists.
-
So if a change was made where there is still cascade negate, but it didn’t hop CBN or CBI abilities, would this be good?
-
When are we gonna realize that cascade negate is bad for the game???
I completely agree, but the reason it exists is because Redemption has tried to force the old school resolution procedure that it picked up from MtG when redemption was brand new. A card is never truly resolved until the phase is over, even if you do the ability on the card. It's clunky. This is hands down the worse thing to teach new players, because most games (all that i can think of) allow players to stop opponents from doing things or interact with opponents' abilities BEFORE your opponent actually performs the ability, but rarely do games allow you to undo a finished result, yet alone a finished result from a previous finished result. Other games have moved away from these types of mechanics for good reason (magic used to have a similar resolution as redemption has today, but they changed in '99 to a system that gave players an opportunity to negate before a resolution, and once an ability was resolved, it was done. No more ways to interact - this made for better card design, better lines of play, and better enjoyment all around - basically, it should be crystal clear when an ability has finished resolving - we our hazy)
-
When are we gonna realize that cascade negate is bad for the game???
I completely agree, but the reason it exists is because Redemption has tried to force the old school resolution procedure that it picked up from MtG when redemption was brand new. A card is never truly resolved until the phase is over, even if you do the ability on the card. It's clunky. This is hands down the worse thing to teach new players, because most games (all that i can think of) allow players to stop opponents from doing things or interact with opponents' abilities BEFORE your opponent actually performs the ability, but rarely do games allow you to undo a finished result, yet alone a finished result from a previous finished result. Other games have moved away from these types of mechanics for good reason (magic used to have a similar resolution as redemption has today, but they changed in '99 to a system that gave players an opportunity to negate before a resolution, and once an ability was resolved, it was done. No more ways to interact - this made for better card design, better lines of play, and better enjoyment all around - basically, it should be crystal clear when an ability has finished resolving - we our hazy)
That's describing the problem with negate as a whole which I don't think Redemption can ever get away from. Cascade negate can just be taken out of the game.
-
When are we gonna realize that cascade negate is bad for the game???
I completely agree, but the reason it exists is because Redemption has tried to force the old school resolution procedure that it picked up from MtG when redemption was brand new. A card is never truly resolved until the phase is over, even if you do the ability on the card. It's clunky. This is hands down the worse thing to teach new players, because most games (all that i can think of) allow players to stop opponents from doing things or interact with opponents' abilities BEFORE your opponent actually performs the ability, but rarely do games allow you to undo a finished result, yet alone a finished result from a previous finished result. Other games have moved away from these types of mechanics for good reason (magic used to have a similar resolution as redemption has today, but they changed in '99 to a system that gave players an opportunity to negate before a resolution, and once an ability was resolved, it was done. No more ways to interact - this made for better card design, better lines of play, and better enjoyment all around - basically, it should be crystal clear when an ability has finished resolving - we our hazy)
That's describing the problem with negate as a whole which I don't think Redemption can ever get away from. Cascade negate can just be taken out of the game.
I was describing "resolving" in general. Because of the way the game sees "negate" some see a need for "Cascade Negate." Perhaps a visual cue: if you have a line of train cars and unlatch one, then all of the ones attached to it also stop moving (cascade negate) - this is the logical outcome the game has taken after all these years.
I think treating it more like the passengers on a train car is better. Sure I may have purchased tickets for me and you, but if I cant find my ticket it doesnt mean that you have to get off the train when you have your ticket.